I’m grateful to AAPLOGfor drawing my attention to yet another study showing a strong link between abortion and mental illness.The paper, titled ‘Associations Between Abortion, Mental Disorders, and Suicidal Behaviour in a Nationally Representative Sample’ was published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in April 2010 and confirmed ‘a strong association between abortion and mental disorders’.

As such it adds further support to the landmark meta-analysis by Priscilla Coleman which I highlighted on this blog in August which showed that abortion raises the risk of mental health problems by an average of 81%.

The Canadian researchers used the National Co-morbidity Survey (NCS) replication data collected between 2001 and 2003. Key points (courtesy of AAPLOG) are:

• A large nationally representative US sample was examined for associations between abortion and life-time prevalence of numerous mental disorders and suicidal behaviors.

• Pro-choice researchers frequently claim the associations between abortion and mental health problems in the literature are due to an unmeasured history of violence exposure being related to both the choice to abort and to mental health problems. These researchers tested this assumption by controlling for violence in all the analyses conducted. They also controlled for age, education, marital status, household income, and ethno-racial background.

• The results revealed statistically significant associations between abortion history and a wide range of mental health problems after controlling for the experience of interpersonal violence and demographic variables.

• When compared to women without a history of abortion, those who had an abortion had a 61% increased risk for Mood Disorders. Social Phobia was linked with a 61% increased risk and suicide ideation with a 59% increased risk.

• In the area of substance abuse, the increased risk for alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, drug abuse, drug dependence, and any substance use disorder were equal to 261%, 142%, 313%, 287%, and 280% respectively.

• Between 5.8% and 24.7% of the national prevalence of all the above disorders was determined to be related to abortion.

The forces of mainstream psychology are bent on proving that abortion is a benign psychological experience for most women. The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force report of 2008 is a classic example of this agenda (See AAPLOG critique)

This Canadian report represents the latest in a series of articles from across the globe (US, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, and South Africa) published in recent years directly contradicting the findings of the APA Task Force report.

Large scale, well-controlled studies using sophisticated data analysis methodologies consistently confirm a relationship between abortion and psychological distress that the national professional organization has dismissed.

On Wednesday, a dear friend of mine sent me an e-mail about donating to “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” to help fight breast cancer. She has a friend who has breast cancer, so she’s doing a walk for that organization. I e-mailed her back telling her that I couldn’t help her with her cause because of the links between Komen and Planned Parenthood. It turns out that, on their website, Komen has dedicated a page and several PDF’s to soften their Planned Parenthood link and to out-rightly dismiss scientific studies that link breast cancer with abortion.

The best, or worst depending on how you look at it, line in the entire letter is “As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.” (emphasis mine)

First off, they freely admit to giving money to Planned Parenthood! If you had any doubts, there it is from Dr. Winer, himself, with no coverup. His statement is naive at best and downright idiotic at worst. This is like saying someone donates to the KKK, but it’s OK because they assure us they only use it for cake and punch, or they give money to neo-nazis, but that is also OK because they assure us they only use it for prostate exams. This definitely reads more like some bad joke than what Dr. Winer believes, but, alas, it is true. Even if they only used the money for cancer screenings, that means they don’t have to use their existing funds for those screenings, giving them even more resources to fund their abortions, contraception, “education”, and advertising. If you donate to Komen, part of that, without a doubt, goes directly to Planned Parenthood. Dr. Winer makes that unashamedly clear.

Nancy Brinker, who founded the Susan G. Komen Foundation, was, herself, on the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of Dallas, and has received the Gertrude Shelburne Humanitarian Award from them. Between April 2005 and March 2006, Komen affiliates gave $711,485 to Planned Parenthood.

20) I know that abortion industry experts concede that women who have abortions lose the risk-reducing benefit of childbearing. However, apart from that effect, aren’t there studies showing that an abortion raises risk very little or not at all, in comparison to not having had that pregnancy?

Yes. There are several studies that report these results. Unfortunately, when you read about it in the press, journalists often don’t understand the differences between the two cancer risks of abortion.

For instance, Valerie Beral and her colleagues published a paper in the British journal Lancet in 2004 that has been widely used to convince women that abortion is “safe.” [31]

The Beral paper only examined the debated breast cancer risk. Its authors conceded the recognized risk of abortion – that childbearing protects women from the disease.

“Unfortunately, misinformation has circulated in the media following an article published last year in the British medical journal The Lancet,” noted Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “The article did not deny that increased abortions result in greater incidence of breast cancer. Rather, the article merely claimed that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer, compared to the risk of someone who delayed pregnancy altogether.” [21]

Four experts, independently of one another, sharply criticized the Beral paper. [21,32,33,34,35] Some of the criticisms include:

1) Beral et al. did not compare groups of women who were physiologically the same. They should have compared pregnant women who aborted to pregnant women who carried their pregnancies to term. Instead, they compared the effect of aborting with the effect of not having had that pregnancy. Pregnancy brings about permanent changes in the structure of the breasts. Pregnant women who choose abortion should be compared to pregnant women who give birth after a full term pregnancy.

2) Twenty-eight out of 52 studies (a majority of the research) contained unpublished abortion data. That means that scientists cannot double-check those studies to determine if they’re flawed or if the research is even relevant. Women just have to take their word for it.

3) Beral et al. used unscientific reasons to exclude 14 peer-reviewed, published studies that reported risk increases for women who had abortions.

“The Beral study is therefore cause for alarm. When a leading scientific journal allows its pages to be used as a political platform, and sets aside objective standards of scientific research, we must begin to wonder whether the spirit of (Jacques) Derrida has infected even scientific discourse….

“Picking conclusions ahead of time, and arranging the evidence to support them, will only serve to undermine the respect that scientific inquiry deserves….

“The unwillingness of scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very serious breach…

“When the public learns that a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community – for reasons that are ideological rather than factual – the feeling of betrayal will be strong.” [34]

Professor Joel Brind at Baruch College in New York concurs with Ed Furton. He has documented widespread bias in the scientific community against the abortion-breast cancer link. In a major paper for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, he cited flawed research that is being used in press reports to erase any notions in the public mind that abortion is unsafe. [32]

In a subsequent paper for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published in 2005, Brind reviewed ten recent, prospective studies and concluded that they are seriously flawed. He wrote:

“Collectively, these studies are found to embody many serious weaknesses and flaws, including cohort effects, substantial misclassification errors due to missing information in databases, inadequate follow-up times, inadequately controlled effects of confounding variables, and frank violations of the scientific method. These recent studies therefore do not invalidate the large body of previously published studies that established induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.” [35]

Although these studies have been criticized in a medical journal for their flaws, the abortion industry and the cancer fundraising industry use them to convince women of the safety of abortion. These studies include:

In 2007, Patrick Carroll, a British statistician and actuary, reported that abortion is the “best predictor” of breast cancer rates in eight European countries (including the U.K.), and fertility is also a useful predictor of those trends. [39,40] Carroll demonstrated that he could predict future breast cancer cases for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates and, to a lesser extent, fertility rates in his mathematical model.

They also state:

ESTROGEN – THE “SMOKING GUN”

Most of the risk factors associated with breast cancer involve estrogen overexposure. Women who experience more menstrual cycles are exposed to higher levels of estradiol, a form of estrogen, over the course of their lifetimes. Women who reach puberty at an early age or menopause at a late age or who have fewer or no children, experience more menstrual cycles. Ergo, they are known have a higher risk of breast cancer. Women who have more children and who nurse them, on the other hand, experience fewer menstrual cycles and reduce their risk of breast cancer by doing so. Similarly, a low fat diet and avoidance of alcohol reduce a woman’s exposure to estrogen.

Estrogen is a secondary carcinogen. It promotes the growth of normal and abnormal tissue. In fact, estrogen replacement therapy, which is generally the same chemical form as the estrogen naturally produced by a woman’s ovaries, was included on our nation’s list of known carcinogens in 2001.

For an exhaustive explanation of estrogen’s role in the promotion of breast cancer, see the Web Site for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute at and click on “The Estrogen Connection,” www.BCPInstitue.org.

Biological Explanation for the Link

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The first epidemiological study was reported in an English language journal in 1957. Researchers found a 160% elevation in risk among women who’d obtained abortions. [Segi M., et al. GANN (1957); 48 (Suppl): 1-63]

The first study to examine the abortion-breast cancer link among American women was published in 1981 and reported that abortion “appears to cause a substantial increase in risk of subsequent breast cancer.” A 140% risk elevation was reported. [Pike MC et al., British Journal of Cancer (1981;43:72-6]

Howe et al. 1989, the only statistically significant study conducted on American women in which medical records of abortion were used, not interviews after the fact, reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women in New York who had chosen abortion. [Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4]

When a women has her monthly cycle, her breasts fill with a cancer causing toxin (estrogen). When she becomes pregnant, her cycle stops for the 9-month period. That in itself has always been an indisputable key factor to lowering breast cancer. The earlier a woman completes a full-term pregnancy, the better, and the more children, the better. Breastfeeding also helps stave off breast cancer. But in addition, when a pregnancy is suddenly aborted, breasts that were preparing to nourish a baby are left with more undifferentiated, i.e., cancer-vulnerable cells, than before she was pregnant. The fact is, abortion can increase a woman’s risk factor up to 160%!

Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.

Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”

The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.

Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.

“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.

Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”

“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.

Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.

“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”

“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.

Before anyone starts formulating their arguments: does this mean that everyone who gets an abortion will get breast cancer? No. Did everyone with breast cancer have an abortion in the past? No. Does having an abortion increase the risk of breast cancer. Undeniably, yes.

This is the simple truth: Susan G. Komen for the Cure gives money and resources to Planned Parenthood. That alone should give you cause for great concern, but they also deny critical information to women about the link between abortions and breast cancer.

If you support Susan G. Komen for the Cure, congratulations, you help support abortion.

A WorldNetDaily post explains how medical studies have shown a link between birth control and increased HIV infection. If true, then all of the contraceptive devices dumped on people and places like HIV-ravaged Africa and promoted by liberal groups like Planned Parenthood have actually been contributing to the spread of the disease, not curbing it.

Researcher: Birth-control pill boosts HIV risk

Contraception may worsen spread of life-threatening virus

Contraceptive pills and the popular Depo-Provera injection may lead to a higher risk of sexually active women contracting HIV/AIDS, a researcher warns.Joan Robinson, a researcher at the Population Research Institute, or PRI, a non-profit research group that studies reproductive health programs, warns of a strong link between certain contraceptives and HIV/AIDS.

“More than 50 medical studies, to date, have investigated the association of hormonal contraceptive use and HIV/AIDS infection,” Robinson reports. “The studies show that hormonal contraceptives – the oral pill and Depo-Provera – increase almost all known risk factors for HIV, from upping a woman’s risk of infection, to increasing the replication of the HIV virus, to speeding the debilitating and deadly progression of the disease.”

Robinson contends that the connection has received almost no publicity or attention due to strong economic and ideological forces that push the pill.

She cites a number of studies, including a 2009 medical trial published in the journal AIDS that found “oral contraceptive pills and depomedroxyprogesterone acetate, DMPA [Depo-Provera], raised the risk of worsening HIV disease in Zambian women enrolled in a randomized trial of contraception methods.”

The study examined 595 HIV-positive women who were not receiving antiretroviral therapy, or ART, treatment that suppresses or stops a retrovirus such as HIV. At the trial’s beginning, HIV disease factors were similar in woman using an intrauterine device, or IUD, DMPA injections or oral contraceptive pills.

The researchers defined HIV disease progression as death or eligibility for ART. They didn’t find a significantly higher risk of death among women using oral contraceptives or DMPA than those using IUDs. However, women taking contraceptive pills had a 70 percent higher risk of becoming eligible for ART. Likewise, women taking DMPA had a 50 percent higher risk than women using IUDs.

“The International AIDS Society noted, “When the investigators looked at a combined disease progression metric of death or ART eligibility, they found about a two-thirds higher risk of progression in women taking oral contraceptive pills … than in women using IUDs.”

In another study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers studied female sex workers attending a municipal STD clinic in Mombasa, Kenya. They found that “women who used [DMPA] had an increased incidence of HIV-1 infection. … There was a trend for an association between use of high-dose oral contraceptive pills and HIV-1 acquisition.”

The researchers noted that results of studies examining the association between hormonal contraception and HIV-1 acquisition have been “inconsistent,” and “no consensus exists regarding the influence of hormonal contraceptives on a woman’s risk of HIV-1 infection.” However, another study involving monkeys showed increased susceptibility to the simian immunodeficiency virus, or SIV, the animal retrovirus comparable to HIV, in female subjects treated with progesterone. “Fourteen of the 18 macaques treated with progesterone became infected with SIV compared with only 1 of 10 control animals,” according to the study.Robinson suggests there is an “impressive body of scientific research demonstrating a Pill/HIV link,” and yet some dismiss the connection and cite a handful of studies and highly selective trials which claim to find “no increase in HIV risk among users of oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera.”

“The problem with many of these studies, such as Mati et al. 1995, Kapiga et al. 1998, and Sinei et al. 1996 is that they were conducted with and through ‘family planning clinics,'” she notes. “Since the chief business of these clinics is the promotion, sale and distribution of contraceptives, the possibility of bias is undeniable. Who would trust Marlboro to monitor a study on the link between cigarettes and cancer?”

Robinson contends that hormonal contraceptives increase almost all known risk factors for HIV infection.

“Studies have found that hormonal contraceptives ‘alter the microenvironment of the female’ and boost the cell count of those specific cells that HIV uses to infect and proliferate,” she wrote. “What is more, a progesterone side effect known to American women as ‘breakthrough bleeding,’ is caused when hormonal contraceptives excessively thicken the uterine lining. The large, bleeding surface of the uterus creates an ideal site for HIV infection.”

Robinson added, “Progesterone also has an immunosuppressant effect, which means that women using hormonal contraceptives have less in the way of natural defenses against HIV and other STDs.”

Three studies have also found that HIV-positive women on hormonal contraceptives are also more likely to pass HIV on to their sex partners due to increased “cervical shedding” of HIV in their bodily fluids.

“High-dose pill users were over 12 times more likely to shed the HIV virus than women not using contraception, low-dose users were almost 4 times more likely, and Depo-Provera users were 3 times more likely,” Robinson wrote.

An estimated 52 percent of unmarried women in America take a hormonal contraceptive. In the interest of lowering the birth rate, she explains, the United Nations Population Fund and the United States Agency for International Development deliver large shipments of hormonal contraceptives to Africa, Haiti and other AIDS-ravaged developing nations. She adds that international aid of hormonal contraceptives may be contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS.

“How many lives are being lost because we continue to ship boatloads of hormonal contraceptives to a continent and to countries laboring under an HIV/AIDS pandemic?” Robinson asks. “Isn’t it time that we stopped?”

CNSNews brings us a story where the International Planned Parenthood Federation has published a guide that encourages HIV-infected youth to have sex, not tell their sexual partners they are infected, and denounces laws requiring persons with sexually transmitted diseases to tell their sexual partners or face criminal charges.

(CNSNews.com) – In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.”

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.

“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”

The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”

“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.”

“Sex can feel great and can be really fun!” the guide says. “Many people think sex is just about vaginal and anal intercourse …. But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex.”

“Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling,” the guide states. “Some people like aggressive sex, while others like to have soft and slow sex with their partners (sic).”

“It’s a vile and vulgar brochure,” Austin Ruse, president of the United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com.

Ruse’s group has been reporting on the “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide in recent weeks after Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International, attended an event for the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women and found copies of the guide in a room where Girl Scouts were meeting.

The Girls Scouts of the USA released a statement denying they were distributing the guides and suggesting the guides may already have been in the room they were using.

Ruse said that aside from the graphic promotion of sex for young people with HIV, the guide also falsely claims that there are international laws to protect their “human rights.”

“There is no such international right that says that you are not required to reveal your HIV status before having sex,” Ruse said. “There’s no such thing.”

“It is a flat-out lie to say otherwise, and in this brochure it is lies from stem to stern,” he said.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com: “To the extent that ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are mentioned in documents of the U.N. or other international agencies, even informally, these terms often have a meaning contrary to that which IPPF gives them. For example, ‘sexual rights’ usually means the right to say NO to unwanted or coerced sex — not a right to HAVE sex under almost any circumstances.”

“By the same token, ‘reproductive rights’ usually involve the right to have children — not the right to destroy them through abortion,” Sprigg said, adding that laws requiring people to disclose to sexual partners that they have HIV protect people and promote sexual health.

IPPF defends its position, saying laws aimed at people with HIV hurt efforts to prevent the spread of the disease and discriminate unfairly against people who have the virus.

“Punitive laws that criminalise HIV transmission will jeopardise global HIV prevention efforts by acting as a disincentive for knowing one’s HIV status and by incorrectly placing an undue burden of responsibility for all safe sex behaviour on people living with HIV (who in many societies are already marginalised and stigmatised),” Kevin Osborne, IPPF senior advisor on HIV told CNSNews.com. “Alternatives to the criminal law must be used to foster increased HIV prevention efforts and behaviours.”

The guide also makes a plug for Planned Parenthood’s profitable “reproductive services.”

“Your local family planning clinic can help you create a plan, whether it is for having children safely, preventing or terminating unplanned pregnancies, or figuring out how to start a family if you are single or in a same-sex relationship,” the guide states.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives more than $350 million of taxpayer funding annually, although federal law prohibits those funds from being used for abortion.

In his early days in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to promote or provide abortions abroad, opening the way for U.S.-funded abortions around the world.

3rd Circuit picks June 29 for eligibility case

Argument alleges Obama probably not even American citizen

A federal court case that argues President Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer, has been scheduled by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for June 29.

In a letter dated yesterday to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney representing plaintiff Charles Kerchner and others, the clerk of the court said the case has been “tentatively listed on the merits on Tuesday, June 29, 2010.”

The notice said there is a possibility the case would have to be moved, and the court “will determine whether there will be oral argument and if so, the amount of time allocated for each side.”

Those decisions would be announced later if necessary, the notification said.

On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner wrote that the case will be addressed by three members of the 3rd Circuit, but those names have not yet been announced.

It has argued that, “Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born.”

“We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a ‘citizen of the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii, the arguments have claimed.

Those claims from Apuzzo came in opposition to government demands that the case be dismissed for lack of “standing” on the part of the plaintiffs.

“How can you deny he’s affecting me?” Apuzzo told WND during a recent interview. “He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we’re not a Christian nation; we’re one of the largest Muslim nations. It’s all there.”

Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The complaint also asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.” The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” excluded dual citizens.

It argues that Obama’s arguments “are nothing more than presentations of general statements on the law of standing which do not address the specific factual and legal content of plaintiffs’ claims. … The defendants in much of their brief basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all other Obama cases have been dismissed.”

Apuzzo said it is “self-evident” under the Constitution that “anyone aspiring to be president has to conclusively prove that he or she is eligible to hold that office. Part of that burden is conclusively showing that one is a ‘natural born citizen.’ Hence, the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of whether plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact.”

He noted the case was filed before Obama became president.

“At this time he was still a private individual who had the burden of proving that he satisfied each and every element of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That plaintiffs filed their action at this time is important for it not only sets the time by which we are to judge when their standing attached to their action against Obama, Congress and the other defendants … but also to show that Obama has the burden of proof to show that he is a ‘natural born citizen’ and satisfied the other requirements of Article II,” Apuzzo wrote.

“At no time in these proceedings or in any other of the many cases that have been filed against him throughout the country has Obama produced a 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born there … We must conclude for purposes of defendants’ motion that since Obama is not a 14th Amendment ‘Citizen of the United States’ let alone an Article II ‘natural born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be president and commander in chief. Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief he is currently acting as such without constitutional authority. It is Obama’s exercising the singular and great powers of the president and commander in chief without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs’ injury in fact.”

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

True Confessions from America’s Census Workers

President Obama’s politicized, profligate U.S. census drive is so desperate for positive press that it has now recruited former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove to do public service announcements.

Rove pleads on video: “Please answer the 10 easy questions. They’re almost the same ones Madison helped write for the first census back in 1790.” Message: If you don’t join the census bandwagon, James Madison will have lost!

Sorry, Mr. Rove. Playing the Founding Fathers card isn’t going to quell conservative criticism of how the Obama administration has exploited the census boondoggle for both economic and ideological gain.

For the record, I have no beef with the constitutional mandate. I complied by filling out my census form and sending it back—with “American” in the blank for race/ethnicity to register my opposition to government racial classifications.

Despite apocalyptic suggestions by census officials and some Republican politicians that conservatives are recklessly boycotting the decennial head count, analysis by both the right-leaning Daily Caller and left-leaning Plum Line websites shows that return rates from conservative counties are in line with national averages.

So, what makes the Obama census campaign different from other census programs? First, its naked, left-wing special interest pandering. The White House is championing a “Queer the Census” movement by pro-gay marriage groups, for example, and the Commerce Department is working with open-borders leaders who want to use the census as leverage to stop all immigration raids.

The electoral stakes are high. Some $400 billion in federal funding and, most importantly, the apportionment of congressional seats are up for grabs. Instead of straightforward enumeration of the American population, Obama and the left’s identity politics-mongers are turning the $1 billion, taxpayer-subsidized census public relations drive into a government preferences lobbying bonanza.

More galling: the White House manipulation of census worker employment to goose the jobless rate. Last week, the government touted employment figures bolstered by the hiring of temporary workers for Census 2010. The Census Bureau anticipates it may add nearly 750,000 workers to its payroll by May. Liberal economist Heidi Shierholz exulted in The Hill: “This is the best-timed census you could ever dream of.” And Team Obama plans to milk it for all it’s worth.

Over the past several weeks, I’ve received e-mails from census workers across the country describing the directive from their managers to slow down, stall, waste time and stretch out their work unnecessarily. As a counter-public service announcement, I’m reprinting some of their letters:

— “…I have been working with the census for two weeks, and every day I shake my head at the blatant inefficiency and deliberate misuse of taxpayer money. Specifically, we have been doing enumeration for those who do not have a home, the homeless in shelters, soup kitchens and in targeted non-sheltered outdoor locations, such as parks, subway stations, etc. I personally have been sent to check on shelters that were already determined to be day programs during the preceding round of quality control, yet they pay me the mileage and hourly wage to go back and make sure that they are still only day programs. I walked through parks and parking lots looking for homeless people to enumerate, not even by talking to them, but just by observing their race, sex and approximate age. …

“…The way the process has been set up by government bureaucracy is so backward and prevents a person who is industrious and efficient from being able to work freely… This is the first job where I am encouraged to be slow and inefficient.”

— “Last summer I participated in the ‘address canvassing’ (AC) project. What this entailed was walking around a neighborhood, literally door to door, with a little handheld computer. My job was not to enter addresses so that these people could receive their form, but to make sure that the addresses that the first wave of people put into the system and appeared on the computer were actually there… Mostly, it was me getting paid $15.25/hour plus mileage to take my dog for a walk and push a few buttons.

“In an average suburban neighborhood where the houses are somewhat close to each other, it was no problem to do about 35 to 40 addresses per hour once you learned how to quickly enter data into the computer. The census said that I should be doing about 12 to 15 per hour. My direct bosses told me that I should NOT be doing 35 to 40, because it was making them and other people look bad. So instead of walking at a snail’s pace, I just did my 35 to 40/hour and doubled my time when I submitted my hours. Again, sorry for the tax dollar grab, but I was told not to be so darned efficient or else I’d be cut!”

— “I had the great pleasure of working for the address canvassing last spring. I was hired in early April for a job that was to be completed by the first week of July. I have a military background and a background in human resources, and the whole process left me with blood squirting from my eyes… I worked in the field for four days so that I would know what to do. The remainder of my time was spent sitting in a McDonald’s to have a daily progress meeting with each of the enumerators. I was paid from the time I left my house to the time I got home … plus mileage. I was told to pad the time or mileage to cover my McDonald’s food, since I was camping in a booth all day. For all that, I was paid $11.75 an hour. …We had a really good crew and were done by the second week of May… Philadelphia was going nuts because our region was getting done so fast, but there was nothing we could do to slow it down another two months.

“… I never saw such a mismanaged outfit in all my life. I just shook my head in total disbelief. Our work could have been done with half the people. We did have those that quit right after training, to the tune of $800 spent on nothing. I earned approximately $3,000. I will say, to be quite honest, it was the easiest money I ever made. On the exit interview, I was asked if I wanted to be called back for further work. I wrote ‘NO’ in big letters. I didn’t want to take any further part in what I saw to be a racket.”

WorldNetDaily reports that a federal judge is demanding the ACLU and the Santa Rosa School District release the names of plaintiffs covered in a consent decree that prevents teachers at the school district from openly practicing their faith. The ACLU and the school district have so far refused to identify the subjects so that they can keep enforcing the decree even though the plaintiffs no longer attend the school district, which would make the decree moot.

Judge to ACLU: Where are plaintiffs?

School district’s policy has forced teachers to pray in closets

Teachers say they are literally forced to pray in school closets to avoid contempt charges

A federal judge handling a case brought by the ACLU against a school district that has forced teachers to hide in closets if they want to pray now is demanding documentation about the status of the plaintiffs, whose identifies have been kept secret.

That’s because the case never was certified as class action, which means unless those for whom the case was brought remain in peril over the school’s actions, there are valid questions about “this court’s continued enforcement jurisdiction over the consent decree,” the judge wrote.

WND has reported on the case, which has included an order crafted by the ACLU requiring employees in the Santa Rosa School District to act in an “official capacity” whenever they are at a “school event” – including breaks, after-school events on or off campus and private events held on campus.

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit Florida law firm, alongside Christian Educators Association International, is seeking to overturn the court order, which has resulted in three school officials being charged with contempt.

According to Liberty Counsel, school officials are strictly prohibited from showing agreement with anyone “communicating with a deity,” such as “bowing the head” or “folding hands.” “School officials” must also prohibit “third-parties” from praying, Liberty Counsel said.

Now, according to Liberty Counsel, the “anonymous plaintiffs” probably have “long since graduated.””But the plaintiffs’ permanent loss of legal standing hasn’t stopped the ACLU and the school district from continuing to defend the consent decree that has become irreversibly moot,” LC said in an announcement today.

“Having failed in its attempts to fine and jail school officials for praying, the ACLU, aided by the school district, has been opposing the efforts of Christian Educators Association International, represented by Liberty Counsel, to have the consent decree declared unconstitutional,” Liberty Counsel said.

The only problem is that the decree became legally moot – or of no consequence whatsoever – “on the day the ACLU’s clients graduated, less than four weeks after it was issued.

“Moreover, without clients that have a legal interest in the litigation, the ACLU was legally barred from continuing to litigate against the people of Santa Rosa County. The ACLU and the school district knew this but conspired to hide the fact that the two anonymous plaintiffs graduated. In the consent decree they jointly submitted to the court, they inserted provisions purporting to require the court to retain jurisdiction for at least five years, thereby inferring that their anonymous clients were much younger. They also asked the court to conceal the plaintiffs’ identity for another five years, so that no one would know they graduated,” according to Liberty Counsel’s report.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers now has ordered that the participants “shall submit memoranda to the court by the close of business on April 7, 2010, advising the court on the status of the named plaintiffs’ continued interest in this litigation, the continued validity of the injunctive consent decree, and the basis for this court’s continued enforcement jurisdiction over the consent decree.”

The plaintiffs have always been identified only as “Minor I Doe” and “Minor II Doe.”

“It has been brought to the court’s attention that the two plaintiffs may have graduated from high school and thus no longer suffer a threat of harm from the school board’s policies and practices,” the judge warned.

This, he said, “raises questions regarding the court’s continued enforcement jurisdiction over the decree as well as the validity of the continuing nature of the injunctive relief provided by the consent decree. This case was not a class action. Even though the plaintiffs prevailed on the merits of their cause oef action … if the named plaintiffs no longer have a continuing interest in the suit, there is a genuine issue regarding mootness … which must be addressed.”

Liberty Counsel’s report said, “The ACLU’s conspiracy is now unraveling. Liberty Counsel raised the issue of mootness last year and then again in the motion earlier this year. The federal court that entered the consent decree, which has literally forced teachers and staff to hide in closets to pray, has now demanded an explanation from the ACLU and the school district as to why it should continue to enforce that consent decree.”

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, said, “The errors in judgment by the ACLU and the school district are stunning. The school district agreed to enter into an unconstitutional consent decree that was legally effective for less than one month, then agreed to pay the ACLU a whopping $200,000, and then expended a great deal of additional resources to oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention and defend the unconstitutional and moot consent decree.

“From the beginning, our position has been that this order should be set aside. We will not rest until that happens. If the school board does not come to its senses and seize the opportunity before it to make things right, the voters of Santa Rosa County will hold them accountable in the next election.”

During her testimony, Winkler broke down on the witness stand as she told a story about how her co-worker sought comfort from her after losing her 2-year-old child.

The two hid behind a closet door to pray, for fear they would be seen and held in contempt of the court order.

Denise Gibson, an elementary teacher for 20 years, testified that the order requires her to inform parents that she cannot respond if they mention church or their faith. She said she is prohibited from replying to e-mails from parents if they contain Bible verses or even “God bless you.” Instead, she said, the district has instructed her to open a separate e-mail to answer the parents rather than hit “reply.” The district calls for the action to eliminate any trace of religious language in school communication.

The men had faced penalties of up to six months in jail and $5,000 in fines each.

The case began in August 2008 when two anonymous students sued with the help of the ACLU over longstanding practices at the school allowing prayer at some events. The school’s separate counsel had agreed to a consent decree that “essentially bans all Santa Rosa County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities,” Liberty Counsel reported.

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace, a Santa Rosa County school, stood up at their graduation, according to Staver. Parents, family and friends joined in the recitation and applauded the students when they were finished, Staver told WND.

“Many of the students also painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith,” the organization reported.